O/T: Abby Sunderland

No, it isn't. The one ship I've seen identified is a fishing vessel. That's not SAR. And Australia SAR had to rent an aircraft.

-------------------------------------------- Sounds like the prudent use of available resources to me.

OZ took the lead.

They had an emitting EPIRB beacon to locate the boat, an airplane with the range to physically find the boat a SAR crew onboard to determine additional resource requirements as well as where to draw them from.

Given the conditions, what more could you ask?

There is a bond among mariners.

You provide assistance when you can.

Lew

The initiators of the stunt Pay so that someone in real need can be helped.

And eventually the "Stunt" sailors will wear that down.

So who in real need is not being helped?

So how many "stunt sailors" have had to be rescued in the past 40 years? And how many doing things that you believe are socially acceptable have had to be rescued? Sorry, but it's not the solo circumnavigators who are taking the lion's share of SAR costs. It's the cruise ships and fishing trawlers and oil tankers and the rest.

One teenaged solo circumnavigator has needed rescue in the entire history of the world. 19 cruise ships have needed rescue in the past 20 years. If you want to bitch about SAR costs, bitch at THEM.

Whomever they don't have money for in Oz.

They Should be paying.

Please identify such a person.

So you're saying that every time a ship is lost the owners should pay the entire cost of the rescue? And I bet every time a house catches fire the owner should pay the entire cost of the fire department coming to put it out, and when some guy is getting mugged the cops shouldn't help him until he whips out his wallet and pays them for the service.

Real nice world you want to create.

Why? You Know they haven't covered Everybody. Ask an Aborigine.

That is Not what I said. I assume cruise ships are insured. If so, their insurance would cover the rescue - or should.

Just like my taxes and Insurance covers the cost of my house fire.

Real nice Strawman. Go burn it.

Do you know of an aborigine who needed rescue at sea and was denied it?

It has not been the habit of governments to bill ship owners for the cost of rescue.

So the fire department where you live bills you for the cost of putting out the fire?

I'm just going by what you've said. Search and rescue is a tax funded government function in most places that have it, like a fire department or a police department. If you want the rescuees to be billed by search and rescue why do you want them to be singled out? Why do you not want fire victims to be billed by the fire department or crime victims to be billed by the police? Why is it only search and rescue for which the victims must pay?

No, do you? Plenty of them have been denied a hell of a lot that could have been paid for by the charter of a long range civilian aircraft.

What part of my response didn't you understand? The part where I said my taxes cover it?

No, you're building a Strawman.

No, not completely. Particularly for specialized SAR such as mountain or widerness rescue.

There's that Strawman again. You want a light for that?

And does whatever they were denied come out of the same part of the budget? The notion that "if we cut this program then this other group will be able to have more money" is a virgin's hope. Government agencies don't work that way.

And Abby's taxes and insurance cover the cost of her rescue so how is she different from you?

Nope, you're advocating that services be provided from something other than taxation.

So who pays for "specialized SAR such as mountain or wilderness rescue"?

So now you deny that you want rescuees to be billed by search and rescue?